If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

i have used igf-lr3 from rc company and had great results.i have heard pharm is a lot better and i can get it but it is 4 times as much.i think you just need to use a little more of the cheaper stuff which you can afford to do at 4 bottles to 1 price diff.but yea with my discount codes i can get igf as low as like 60 bucks a vial and get tren like results on 1 vial could i get better results of of pharm sure but why i happy now. if i was a pro or going after my pro card sure i would pony up.

Increlex is plain IGF-1. The "holy grail" stuff is bullshit...pure bullshit...period. Mg per mg, LR3 is far superior...by a long shot. Anyone who still thinks that all the IGF-1 being sold by peptide companies is "fake" is highy ignorant and has no idea what they're talking about. Some of these people pretend as if IGF-1 is super some secret, incredibly expensive, impossibly difficult to produce drug that couldn't possibly be produced by anyone other than Big Pharma...LOL. I still laugh when I hear this ridicuklous shit being spouted off as truth--always by those who have never used it themselves, but are simply repeating what some other jackass said, who in turn repeated what some jack-ass said...and on down the line it goes...one jack ass repeating what another jackass says. You can thank the scamming, lying, conning GH15 for this highly ignorant information.

We know exactly what IGF-1 is...we know exactly how IGF-1 works...it has been researched in-depth by pharmacuetical companies prior to becoming a prescription medication, so we know exactly what to expect with IGF-1 in humans. The fact is the drug was a let down. It did not meet the expectations of the pharm comanies producing it. It was shown to be less effective, from a clinical effectiveness standpoint, than other drugs like GH. This is why it is almost never prescribed for anything. It doesn't come anywhere close to steroids for muscle growth, not even when using massive dosages...and the clinical reserach is quite clear about this. Research is also clear that LR3 is considerably more poptent per mg...and DES IGF-1 is even more potent...by a considerable margin. The only reason DES does not work much better than LR3 is because it has a much shorter active life than LR3. However, regular IGF-1's active life is even shorter than DES...and it is not even 1/10th as potent, per mg.

Regular IGF-1 (Increlex) is actually quite weak. When regular IGF-1 is used at LR3 dosages of 50-100 mcg daily, it produces amost no results. Why do you think Increlex is dosed at 1,000's of mcg's daily? Because super high dosages like that are required just to have a moderate effect. Even when using 1,000's mcg daily, it only added a few pounds of muscle in test subjects over an extended period of time. The bottom line is that regular IGF-1 is not cost-effective. You need to use super high dosages just to obtain mediocre gains. Clinical research has proven this and real world experience has proven it. Regular IGF-1 is an out-dated drug. Science has yeilded up 2 far superior versions in both LR3 and DES. This is indisputable.

However, some people want to believe the lie--they want to believe that there is some super hard to get, super expensive, ultra-effective drug out there which is the "holy grail" of PED's. They would rather believe this lie than accept the truth...because believing it brings them hope--hope that they too can achieve all their physique goals if they could just get ahold of this wonder drug. Taking away this false hope would mean losing the magick. It amazes me that some people actually choose to discard the reliable research of multi-billion dollar pharmacuetical companies which have extensively tested the drug in humans using very largen dosages, in favor of internet rumors started by the least credible of people. Only in BB'ing do people believe such foolish things, even when there is an abundance of reliable research providing us with clear answers.

You would think that igf-1 would yield greater results than gh for the simple fact that gh stimulates igf but igf directly would definately have better results. I'm not saying it's true, saying it from a perspective of basically of most anabolics.(prohormone precursor vs direct steroid) or taking something to raise test vs injecting test. I'm not disagreeing by any means, and I don't think there is anything better than high dose test stacked with high gh. But the one thing I don't understand is the cost factor. Gh is expensive no matter if it's pharma or not, how can igf peptide companies sell be so cheap and the pharma stuff so expensive? Easy to produce? I just see a lot of these peptide companies selling stuff like myostatin inhibitors and things to this nature and find it hard to believe that Wyeth pharmaceuticals is still developing

You would think that igf-1 would yield greater results than gh for the simple fact that gh stimulates igf but igf directly would definately have better results. I'm not saying it's true, saying it from a perspective of basically of most anabolics.(prohormone precursor vs direct steroid) or taking something to raise test vs injecting test. I'm not disagreeing by any means, and I don't think there is anything better than high dose test stacked with high gh. But the one thing I don't understand is the cost factor. Gh is expensive no matter if it's pharma or not, how can igf peptide companies sell be so cheap and the pharma stuff so expensive? Easy to produce? I just see a lot of these peptide companies selling stuff like myostatin inhibitors and things to this nature and find it hard to believe that Wyeth pharmaceuticals is still developing

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When I mentioned GH being more effective than Increlex from a clinical standpoint, I was referring to the reasons for which GH and IGF-1 is used; namely for short stature children. Regardless, IGF-1 still faired rather poorly as an abolic in comparison to AAS, which is why it is rarely prescribed even for aids patients or others with wasting diseases. GH is prescribed much more readily for aids victims than Increlex. You alos need to keep in mind that IGF-1 elevation is not the only mechnism by which GH causes muscle growth. Science has recently shoiwn that the Gh molecule itself alos causes muscle growth, so Gh causes growth through multiple ,mechnaims, not just IGF-1 elevation.

However, IGF-1 is still more effective for muscle growth than GH when both are used at optimal dosages, but LR3 and DES are more effective than either. Compared to AAS...IGF-1 isn't even close.

In terms of pharma price vs. peptide company price, you need to realize that the cost of pharma drugs is dependent on production difficulty only to a very small degree. The ultimate price of the drug is primarily determined by the all the time and money that went into its research & development, as well as the greed of the compoany owners. Bringing a single new drug to market takes years from the time it was first invented until it hits pharmacy store shelves. In some cases it can be over 10 years. Who do you think pays for those 5-10 years of research & development? You do. You are paying for all the costs assumed by the company during that time. It costs a pharm company literally millions...or even 10's of millions to bring a single new drug to market...even the most simple of drugs. The entire process, from the intial research & development phases, until the final FDA approval is granted, takes a long time and costs a tremendous amount of money.

On top of that, when you pay for a new drug, you are not just paying for that drug alone...you are also paying for all the many years of failed research & development that were spent on drugs which never made it to market. For every new drug which gains FDA approval and ends up being sold in pharmacies, dozens of potential drugs are rejected. These trial drugs can be worked on for a couple months or many years. In many cases a drug will make it all the way until the final phase of the animal or human testing before it is rejected due to unsatisfactory test results. By that point the company may have invested many millions in research & development on a drug which will never earn a single penny. Who do you think makes up for that loss? You do. The cost gets passed along to the small percentage of drugs which do get approved.

Of course, don't forget the millions in advertising that is spent...not to mention that tremendous GREED of these companies which set profit margins ridiculously high. When you add all this up, you can see how pharmacy IGF-1 is so damn expensive. Other factors are involved, as well. Does the drug meet a need that no other drug can? What does the drug do? Does is save lives? Does it help short-stature children grow to a normal height (Increlex)? Or, does it just treat heartburn? All of this plays a role as well.

Peptide companies don't incurr any of these costs. They don't have to do any research & development. They don't have to pay any employees. They don't have to gain FDA approval. They don't have to do anything. They take a drug that a pharm company spent many years working on and which they have millions invested in...and sell it without asking anyone for permission or contributing anything to the cost of bringing it into existence. They simply hire out a lab to make the drug and then sell it. Cheap & easy. These labs make drugs for all sorts of companies every day. Their only jib is to make drugs. They aren't involved in research & development, advertising, or anything else, so they have no costs to pass down. The raw materials used to synthesize these drugs cost literally a few pennies per vial. Most of the cost goes towards paying the emlpoyees and on overhead. All forms of IGF-1 are cheap & easy to manufacturer. I won't tell you how much these labs are charging peptide companies per vial, but I have seen what they are being charged with my own eyes...and it is a fraction of what the customer ends up paying.

In the end, peptide companies bypass all the costs associated with big pharma and therefore, they can charge $60-$70 a vial for IGF-1 and still have high profit margins. Of course, not all products have the same profit margin, but the point is that these drugs are not hard or expensive to produce. These savings are then passed down to the customer.

You ask how a peptide company can sell a drug that a pharm company is still developing. Easy. For one, the pharm company is no longer still "developing" the drug. The drug was already developed. There is much more involved in getting a drug approved by the FDA than simply making it. They need to prove that it is safe for use in humans, which is a long, extensive process. In some cases 10 years can pass from the time a drug was initially developed until it is sold in stores. There are many steps involved in this entire process, which the FDA requires them to undertake in order to gain final approval.

Thanks for the info, very informative read and for sure makes 100% sense. After reading that, like you said, IGF is more of a "thought" of insane growth and not having access to it is what separates the pros from everyone else when its so far from the truth.

Originally Posted by Mike Arnold

When I mentioned GH being more effective than Increlex from a clinical standpoint, I was referring to the reasons for which GH and IGF-1 is used; namely for short stature children. Regardless, IGF-1 still faired rather poorly as an abolic in comparison to AAS, which is why it is rarely prescribed even for aids patients or others with wasting diseases. GH is prescribed much more readily for aids victims than Increlex. You alos need to keep in mind that IGF-1 elevation is not the only mechnism by which GH causes muscle growth. Science has recently shoiwn that the Gh molecule itself alos causes muscle growth, so Gh causes growth through multiple ,mechnaims, not just IGF-1 elevation.

However, IGF-1 is still more effective for muscle growth than GH when both are used at optimal dosages, but LR3 and DES are more effective than either. Compared to AAS...IGF-1 isn't even close.

In terms of pharma price vs. peptide company price, you need to realize that the cost of pharma drugs is dependent on production difficulty only to a very small degree. The ultimate price of the drug is primarily determined by the all the time and money that went into its research & development, as well as the greed of the compoany owners. Bringing a single new drug to market takes years from the time it was first invented until it hits pharmacy store shelves. In some cases it can be over 10 years. Who do you think pays for those 5-10 years of research & development? You do. You are paying for all the costs assumed by the company during that time. It costs a pharm company literally millions...or even 10's of millions to bring a single new drug to market...even the most simple of drugs. The entire process, from the intial research & development phases, until the final FDA approval is granted, takes a long time and costs a tremendous amount of money.

On top of that, when you pay for a new drug, you are not just paying for that drug alone...you are also paying for all the many years of failed research & development that were spent on drugs which never made it to market. For every new drug which gains FDA approval and ends up being sold in pharmacies, dozens of potential drugs are rejected. These trial drugs can be worked on for a couple months or many years. In many cases a drug will make it all the way until the final phase of the animal or human testing before it is rejected due to unsatisfactory test results. By that point the company may have invested many millions in research & development on a drug which will never earn a single penny. Who do you think makes up for that loss? You do. The cost gets passed along to the small percentage of drugs which do get approved.

Of course, don't forget the millions in advertising that is spent...not to mention that tremendous GREED of these companies which set profit margins ridiculously high. When you add all this up, you can see how pharmacy IGF-1 is so damn expensive. Other factors are involved, as well. Does the drug meet a need that no other drug can? What does the drug do? Does is save lives? Does it help short-stature children grow to a normal height (Increlex)? Or, does it just treat heartburn? All of this plays a role as well.

Peptide companies don't incurr any of these costs. They don't have to do any research & development. They don't have to pay any employees. They don't have to gain FDA approval. They don't have to do anything. They take a drug that a pharm company spent many years working on and which they have millions invested in...and sell it without asking anyone for permission or contributing anything to the cost of bringing it into existence. They simply hire out a lab to make the drug and then sell it. Cheap & easy. These labs make drugs for all sorts of companies every day. Their only jib is to make drugs. They aren't involved in research & development, advertising, or anything else, so they have no costs to pass down. The raw materials used to synthesize these drugs cost literally a few pennies per vial. Most of the cost goes towards paying the emlpoyees and on overhead. All forms of IGF-1 are cheap & easy to manufacturer. I won't tell you how much these labs are charging peptide companies per vial, but I have seen what they are being charged with my own eyes...and it is a fraction of what the customer ends up paying.

In the end, peptide companies bypass all the costs associated with big pharma and therefore, they can charge $60-$70 a vial for IGF-1 and still have high profit margins. Of course, not all products have the same profit margin, but the point is that these drugs are not hard or expensive to produce. These savings are then passed down to the customer.

You ask how a peptide company can sell a drug that a pharm company is still developing. Easy. For one, the pharm company is no longer still "developing" the drug. The drug was already developed. There is much more involved in getting a drug approved by the FDA than simply making it. They need to prove that it is safe for use in humans, which is a long, extensive process. In some cases 10 years can pass from the time a drug was initially developed until it is sold in stores. There are many steps involved in this entire process, which the FDA requires them to undertake in order to gain final approval.